League of Women Voters ofthe Monterey Peninsula
VOTER
September 2011, Volume 83, Number 10
General Meeting, Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Monterey County Sheriff Miller
on Public Safety Issues
Monterey County Sheriff Scott Miller will speak
about serious public safety issues here in Monterey
County. Topics will include: new approaches to
combat gang violence; what “prison realignment”
means to your neighborhood; jail overcrowding
and what we’re doing about it; and the implications
of shrinking state and local budgets on your safety.
Salinas Police Department; and served six years
as Pacific Grove’s Chief of Police before retiring
in 2003.
In 2004, Miller was elected to the Pacific Grove
City Council and served a four year term, including
two years as Mayor Pro Tempore.
Miller holds a Masters Degree in Management
from California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona, is a graduate of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) National Academy, and
Miller was elected Sheriff in November 2010, the California Peace Officers Standards and
after coming out of retirement to defeat two-term Training (POST) Command College. He is a
incumbent Mike Kanalakis. He began his law third generation Pacific Grove resident.
enforcement career in 1976 as a deputy sheriff
Melanie Billig [email protected]
in Santa Clara County; spent 17 years with the
Sheriff Miller will also discuss the pros and cons of
electing a sheriff and hold a question and answer
session with the audience.
HWY
68
Mo
nt
e
y
re
Universalist
Church
off 1 & 68
on Aguajito
Road
A gu
to Carmel
Lunch begins 12 noon / Presentation starts 12:30
$20 per person for lunch
(salad buffet, hot/cold entrée, beverage, dessert)
Reservations are a must for lunch!
Contact Lorita Fisher
(phone 375-8301 or e-mail [email protected])
Please pay at the door for lunch.
Lecture at 12:30 is FREE and does not require a reservation.
LWVMP General Luncheon Meetings are held at the
Unitarian Universalist Church http://uucmp.org
490 Aguajito Road / Carmel CA 93923
HWY
1
e
ov
Gr
(General Meetings are held the 2nd Wednesday of each month)
ci
to
Pa
fic
LWVMP General Meeting Luncheon
to
EXIT
399A
HWY
1
ajito Rd
LWVMP
Officers
President
Bev Bean
484-2451
[email protected]
Vice-President
Vicki Gilfix
622-9510
[email protected]
Secretary
Jean Donnelly
372-3599
[email protected]
Directors
Government
George Riley
645-9914
[email protected]
Membership
Tamara Harris
649-3865
[email protected]
Natural Resources
Janet Brennan
659-2090
[email protected]
Public Relations
Melanie Billig
626-3826
[email protected]
Social Policy
Open for nomination
State & National Action
Anne Bell
626-4761
[email protected]
Voters Service
Dennis Mar
372-9388
[email protected]
Webmaster
Robin Tokmakian
655-5047
[email protected]
At Large
Carole Dawson
647-8845
[email protected]
Sylvia Shih
484-9747
[email protected]
Talma Taormina 375-1477
[email protected]
Nominating Committee
Marilyn Maxner, Philomine Smith
Off-Board Positions
Treasurer
Marilyn Maxner
649-0335
[email protected]
Luncheon Logistics
Lorita Fisher
375-8301
[email protected]
Video Webmaster
Bob Evans
372-8323
[email protected]
Newsletter Editor
Regina Doyle
375-4496
[email protected]
T
The PRESIDENT’S Message
he League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula has
been active through the summer months with planning and
action (read “Where the Action Is,” page 4). The new and
returning Board of Directors met on June 18 at my home to plan
for our League year (September 2011 through June 2012).
Board Organization
Welcome to our new Directors: Melanie Billig (Public Relations)
and Talma Taormina (At Large) and thanks to all those valuable
members who are continuing on the board.
Committee appointments include the Executive Committee:
Janet Brennan, Vicki Gilfix, George Riley, Robin Tokmakian
and myself, Beverly Bean; the Budget Committee: Carole
Dawson, Marilyn Maxner and Dennis Mar; Financial Planning:
Nancy Green, Dennis Mar and Anne McGowan; the Handbook:
Tamara Harris and Marilyn Maxner; the Nominating Committee
(from the Board): Anne Bell and Dennis Mar and (elected):
Marilyn Maxner and Phil Smith.
Robin and Tamara agreed to serve on the Merger Study
Committee being formed by the LWV of the Salinas Valley.
Dennis will head the Voter Service Committee. A new Audit
Committee was appointed: Sylvia Shih and Kemay Eoyang will
conduct an audit and file it by November 15.
The LWVMP Board will continue to meet on the fourth Wednesday
of the month at 1 pm at Mariposa Hall, and start on August 24. Our
“Lunch and Learn with the League” meetings will continue at
the Unitarian Universalist Church on the second Wednesday at
noon.
Vicki Gilfix will continue to coordinate the lunch menu with
Jeffrey’s and her goal is to keep it interesting and within budget.
The Natural Resources Committee has changed its meeting to
the second Thursday of the month at noon. We completed our
plans for the topics and organizers for the lunch meetings for the
year. After our prodigious labors we adjourned
to a fantastic potluck feast!
Education Study
On July 7, the first meeting to
organizing our participation in the
LWVUS Education Study was held.
We are very lucky to have a member
with fantastic education credentials
League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula
September 2011
who is passionate about the topic: The Role of
the Federal Government in Public Education
(K-12). She is Resa Foss, and she will organize
the speakers for our panel discussion at the
November L&L meeting. Vicki Gilfix agreed to
chair the study group and I will serve as secretary.
The other members are Dennis Mar and Sylvia
Shih. Thanks to Resa for providing us print copies
of the LWVUS study documents.
We are providing the background information to
the membership so that we can hold meaningful
discussions and consensus in November.
Therefore we will have one or more summary
articles in each issue of The Voter until then, plus
commentary and related consensus questions,
starting on page 5.
The longer background articles are available at
the LWVUS website. You can find them at www.
lwv.org and then click on “FOR MEMBERS”; then
in the left column click on “Projects and Programs”
and then in the left column under Projects and
Programs click on “Public Education.” For those
who don’t like to click and would like a print copy
of the articles, please contact Vicki at (831) 6229510.
The November L&L meeting will be followed by
discussion and consensus at our tables, on the first
section of questions, led by study group members.
We will have discussion and take consensus on
the second section of questions the following day,
Thursday, November 10 at noon at Mariposa Hall.
I have learned much from these readings, which I
would not have known without the League study
process. I hope you will join in the study process—
thinking about and discussing these issues
and sharing your thoughts is an interesting and
enjoyable part of being “In League.”
Next Lunch & Learn
I hope to see many of you at Lunch and Learn on
September 14 when you will have the opportunity
to have a question and answer session with
Monterey County Sheriff Scott Miller (see page 1).
Beverly Bean [email protected]
September 2011
September 2011
Program Calendar
Natural Resources Committee
THURSDAY,* September 8
noon to 1:30pm
*(Natural Resources has changed from
the first Wednesday of each month to the
second Thursday of each month)
Mariposa Hall, 801 Lighthouse, Monterey
Contact: Janet Brennan,
[email protected]
General Meeting:
Lunch & Learn
WEDNESDAY, September 14
(second Wednesday of each month)
lunch 12 noon / presentation 12:30pm
Monterey County Sheriff
Scott Miller
Unitarian Universalist Church
Junction Hwys 1 & 68
490 Aguajito Road
Contact: Lorita Fisher, 375-8301
LWVMP Board Meeting
WEDNESDAY, September 28, 1:00pm
(fourth Wednesday of each month)
Mariposa Hall, 801 Lighthouse, Monterey
Contact: Beverly Bean, 484-2451
[email protected]
Twitter User?
Follow @lwvmp to get notification of League
meetings and actions on issues!
The League of Women Voters
of the Monterey Peninsula
The Voter is published September through May
Deadline: second Saturday of the month
Send e-articles information and/or updates to
Regina Doyle, LWVMP Voter Editor
[email protected]
or mail to: LWVMP, PO Box 1995
Monterey, CA 93942-1995
Monterey Peninsula VOTER www.lwvmp.org
page 3
T
WHERE THE ACTION IS!
his has been a busy summer for the League.
We have acted on four major issues related
to water, land use, regional government and
hazardous substances.
Regional Desalination Project
functioning in Orange County
We think fundamental issues related to the
Regional Desalination Project should be resolved
before the project, including the test wells, moves
forward and any more funds are expended on a
program that appears in jeopardy.
We testified before the California Coastal
Commission on the application for a slant test
Issues requiring immediate resolution include:
well for the project recommending that approval
„„ The serious conflict of interest matter
be delayed until major issues are resolved. We
with regard to the Monterey County Water
described our participation in the planning effort
Resources Agency director Steve Collins
from its inception and described our efforts to
which has jeopardized the water purchase
develop an alternative plan. We said The League
and settlement agreements approved by the
and others consistently objected to the following
CPUC
Regional Project deficiencies:
„„ Groundwater rights to the pumping of
„„ Lack of direct representation for Monterey
feedwater for the desalination plant
Peninsula water users (called “ratepayers” by
„„ Exportation of water from the Salinas
the CPUC)
Valley Groundwater Basin in light of the
„„ Lack of transparency in developing and
state law prohibiting such exportation
approving the purchase and settlement
„„ Financing options, and
agreements
„„ Litigation challenging the Regional
„„ Failure to adequately address groundwater
Desalination Project raising issues of CEQA
rights for coastal wells to pump feedwater for
violations, illegal and harmful appropriation of
the desalination plant
groundwater and violation of the prohibition on
„„ Exportation of groundwater from the
groundwater export from the Salinas basin
Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB)
At
its meeting on August 12, the California
in violation of state law (the Monterey County
Coastal Commission voted unanimously
Water Resources Agency Act, which is part
to continue the hearing on the project until
of the state water code) that prohibits such
conflict of interest and water rights issues
export
are resolved.
„„ Unanalyzed and unmitigated significant
impacts of the proposed coastal wells on
Whispering Oaks
North County water supplies
The League opposed the Whispering Oaks
„„ Uncertainty regarding the availability of
project on the former Fort Ord based on
desalinated water to meet regulatory
the elimination of over 4,000 oak trees
requirements because of the need to
and the availability of alternative locations
retain freshwater extracted from the
for the Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST)
SVGB within the Salinas Valley
facility. Even though the Planning
„„ Failure of the desalination project
Commission opposed the project on a
to offset its greenhouse gas emissions
rare unanimous vote, it was approved by
„„ The near total reliance on the
the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.
costly desalinated water while virtually
Sufficient signatures have been collected to put
ignoring other less-costly and environmentally
the issue before the voters. That Board has the
superior options such as expanded aquifer
option of rescinding its approval or placing the
storage and recovery and a groundwater
matter on the ballot. If it goes to the voters, the
replenishment program similar to the one
page 4
League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula
September 2011
vote will be in June 2012. Even though the Fort
Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) Plan designates
another location for the MST facility, the MST
Board was persuaded by the Monterey County
Redevelopment Agency to swap its site for one
at the proposed Whispering Oaks business park.
The swap would allow the Monterey Downs
project (a proposed horse park and major
residential subdivision) to be built without an
adjacent incompatible use—the MST facility.
Efforts to Abolish AMBAG
The Leagues of Women Voters of Santa Cruz
County, Monterey Peninsula and Salinas
Valley sent a letter to the Association of
Monterey Bay Area Governments with copies
to cities, counties and many special districts
regarding efforts to change or eliminate the
regional planning functions of AMBAG. We
described our long-standing support for regional
planning for land use, transportation and air
quality and urged the Board to make every effort
to assure that those functions continue within
the region while addressing short-comings of the
existing organization that may exist.
Resolution Against the Use
of Methyl Iodide in Monterey County
Our League approved a letter to the Board of
Supervisors urging adoption of a resolution
opposing use of methyl iodide in the County. Methyl
iodide is the proposed replacement chemical for
the banned ozone-depleting chemical methyl
bromide. Methyl iodide is a known carcinogen,
neurotoxin, and thyroid toxin, which can also
disrupt fetal development, cause miscarriages
and contaminate groundwater. It was nevertheless
approved under lobbying pressure from the
chemical manufacturer Arysta LifeScience. The
letter requires approval of the Salinas Valley
League since it is a countywide issue. LWVSV
postponed a decision supporting the letter pending
consideration by its members.
THE EDUCATION STUDY
© 2011 by the League of Women
Voters of the United States
As mentioned by Beverly Bean on page 2,
our League is participating in the US League’s
Education Study. Following are the first two
background documents and the consensus
questions for your understanding of the issues.
Right now, the plan is to do the first half of the
consensus meeting following our November 9th
Lunch & Learn meeting. All are encouraged
to stay and participate. The second half will be
conducted on November 10th at Mariposa Hall
from 1 to 3pm.
Vicki Gilfix, Education Study Group Chair
[email protected]
The History of the Federal
Government in Public Education:
Where Have We Been and
How Did We Get Here?
Where Have We Been?
F
rom the very beginning of our Republic, a
well-educated citizenry was thought to be
essential to protect liberty and the general
welfare of the people. Even before the Constitution
was established, the Land Ordinance of 1785
and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 included
responsibilities of the nation for an education
system. Education has long been considered a
national concern by the federal government.
Through federal action, education has been
encouraged and financially supported from the
first Northwest Ordinance in 1785 to the present.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution granted
Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to
provide for the general welfare of the United
States. It is under this “general welfare” clause
Visit the League website to read the full text of the that the federal government has assumed the
letters.
power to initiate educational activity in its own right
and to participate jointly with states, agencies and
Janet Brennan [email protected] individuals in educational activities.
September 2011
Monterey Peninsula VOTER www.lwvmp.org
page 5
During the first century of our new nation,
Congress granted more than 77 million acres
of the public domain as an endowment for the
support of public schools through tracts ceded
to the states. In 1841, Congress passed an act
that granted 500,000 acres to eight states and
later increased land grants to a total of 19 states.
The federal government also granted money,
such as distributions of surplus federal revenue
and reimbursements for war expenses, to states.
Though Congress rarely prescribed that such funds
be used only for schools, education continued to
be one of the largest expenses of state and local
governments so the states used federal funds
whenever possible for education.
be established in each township formed under a
specified formula. Regulated monies raised via
taxes and selling or renting land.
Two of our constitutional amendments played
an important role in public education. In 1791,
the 10th Amendment stated, “The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.” Public
education was not mentioned as one of those
federal powers, and so historically has been
delegated to the local and state governments.
First Morrill Act (otherwise known as the
Land Grant Act) (1862)
Donated public lands to states to be used for
the endowment to support and maintain at least
one college with specific purpose of teaching
branches of agriculture, mechanic arts and
industrial education.
In 1868, the 14th Amendment guaranteed rights
to all citizens by stating, “All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens in the United
States and of the state wherein they reside. No
state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any state deprive
any person of life, liberty or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”
Included below is a brief historical overview of
federal involvement in public education.
History of the Role of the
Federal Government in
Public Education: Timeline
Land Ordinance & Northwest Ordinance
(1785/1787)
Requirement of a system of public education to
page 6
Land Grants (1841/1848)
Congress granted 77+ million acres of land in
the public domain as endowments for support
of schools. Federal government also granted
surplus money to states for public education.
Early Philosophy–first six presidents
Discussion of a national university and urging of
federal involvement in public education. Seen
as critical to preparation for citizenship in a
republican form of government.
The Original Department (Office) of
Education Established (1867)
Began to collect data – information on schools
and teaching that would help states establish
effective school systems.
Second Morrill Act (1890)
Gave the Office of Education responsibility
for administering support for the original
system of land-grant colleges. Smith-Hughes
Act1917Promoted vocational schools
Lanham Act (1941) / Impact Aid Laws (1950)
Eased the burden on communities affected by
presence of military and federal installations:
payments to school districts.
GI Bill (1944)
Provided post secondary education assistance
to GIs returning from World War II
George-Barden Act (1946)
Funding for agricultural, industrial and home
economics training for high school students
League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula
September 2011
National Defense Education Act (1958)
In response to Soviet Sputnik. NDEA included
support for loans to college students in science,
mathematics and foreign languages.
Elementary & Secondary Education Act
(1965)
Established comprehensive set of programs
including Title I of federal aid to disadvantaged.
Title IX (1972)
Prohibited discrimination in education based on
gender.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973)
Prohibited discrimination based on disability.
Department of Education Cabinet Level Agency (1980)
Recognized the important role of public education
in our country.
Educational Testing Service (ETS)
and NAEP (1983)
Federal government transferred responsibility
for administering the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) to ETS: the
nation’s report card.
Nation at Risk (1983)
Report indicating that the USA was falling behind
in education achievement.
President G.H. Bush (1989-1992)
“Indian Education Bill of Rights”
K-12 Drug awareness model
Advisory committee on Hispanic education
America 2000 education reform program
Work began on national standards
President W. Clinton (1993-1999)
Academics 2000 offered grant to states / local
school districts for innovation. Teach for America.
President G.W. Bush (2001-2008)
Reauthorization of ESEA –No Child Left Behind.
September 2011
President Barack Obama (2009- )
President Obama’s Blueprint for Reform–
Reauthorization of ESEA.
Race to the Top: Grants awarded to states with
innovative ideas that accepted the Common
Core Standards.
(For article references, visit www.lwvus.org)
The Role of the Federal
Government In Public Education:
Where Are We Now and the Impact
Upon Early Childhood Education
T
he United States has changed dramatically
since the early debates on public schools.
The responsibility for education for the
common good shifted from mainly local control to
state control. Now, in 2011, attention is coming from
the federal government and national organizations
to control standards.
Congress is currently in a debate and stalemate
over the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (1965 ESEA,
reauthorized as “No Child Left Behind” in 2001).
Major issues include the purpose and role of the
federal government in public education.
Pro: An increased role of the federal
government in education ensures equal
education opportunities for all children across
the country, so that we will be better prepared
to compete globally. The federal government
has always had a part in distributing funding
to state and local school districts for specific
needs, so there will be more consistency across
the districts and states.
Con: Education has traditionally been a local
and state issue. An increased role of the
federal government will add to the number of
unfunded federal mandates (laws passed with
no monetary support). Decisions at the local
level best serve the needs of students in the
local area.
Monterey Peninsula VOTER www.lwvmp.org
page 7
Funding for Early Childhood Education
This Brief covers the reasons for the federal role
in public education relating to early childhood,
the importance of parent education, and the pros
and cons related to federal intervention in early
childhood education.
The National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC) creates standards and
guidance for early childhood providers across
the country. Their position statements promote
and endorse an integrated, well-financed system
of early care and education for the learning and
development of all children, including children in
poverty.
Major Federal Programs for Early
Childhood up to 2010: Timeline
Head Start (1965)
Funded by US Department of Health & Human
Services, provides children from low-income
families free access to early education. Also
includes children at risk and with disabilities.
Even Start Title I, Part B (1988)
Integrated early childhood education to lowincome parents for children birth through age 7,
integrating adult education and early childhood
learning with family literacy programs.
Early Head Start (1995)
Funded programs for low-income families
supporting two generations, usually mothers
and infants and toddlers.
Title I of Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA)
(many revisions since 1965)
Local education agencies apply to state
agencies for approval of the program that
is subsequently funded by the federal
government.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2001)
Promotes the use of Title I, Part A, to fund preschool programs, recognizing the importance
of preparing children for entering school with
page 8
language, cognitive and early reading skills.
Early Reading First (2002)
Extends the goals of NCLB under Reading First
to preschoolers.
Special Education Preschool Grants
and State Grants Programs 3-5 (2002)
Part of Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) funding for preschool students ages
3-5.
Special Education Grants for
Infants and Families (2007)
Part C of IDEA (birth to 2 for children with
disabilities)
Child Care Development Fund (CCDF)
(many revisions since 1990)
The Child Care and Development Fund
assists low-income families, families receiving
temporary public assistance, and those
transitioning from public assistance in obtaining
child care so they can work or attend training/
education.
Pros: From an economic standpoint, achieving
equity builds lasting value. Heckman’s
(2010) research shows that inequality in the
development of human capabilities produces
negative social and economic outcomes at
every level and can be prevented by the proper
investment in people. Early childhood education,
particularly for disadvantaged children and their
families, levels the playing field to provide equal
opportunities for success.
Every dollar invested in early childhood education
returns ten cents on the dollar annually for the
life of a child, a 10 percent per year return on
investments. Furthermore, solid economic
returns are possible, providing investments come
early and are comprehensive, cohesive, and
sustained over time, because it shapes the future
and builds equity. Heckman warns that investing
later chains us to fixing the missed opportunities
of the past that are very costly. Heckman’s
research clearly documents the impact of quality
League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula
September 2011
early childhood education upon later success in
school, and beyond, in health and in economic
advantages for society in general.
Cons: Reasons against the federal involvement
in early childhood basically come from providers
of childcare centers as well as legislators.
Some argue that universal preschool will be too
expensive to support and that it will take away
funding for K-12 grades. Educators who own and
manage private preschools raise concerns that
parents will choose “free” preschools instead of
private ones.
(For article references, visit www.lwvus.org)
Planning to Update Your Will?
Consider including a gift for the
LWV Education Fund
or our local LWV Monterey Bay
to strengthen the pillars of
our democracy for years to come.
If you wish to set up a gift that provides
income, e.g., a charitable gift annuity, please
contact any of our Officers (see list page 2),
e-mail [email protected], or leave a
message at 648-VOTE.
PUBLIC EDUCATION STUDY
CONSENSUS QUESTION
© 2011 by the League of Women Voters of the United States
This copy of the consensus questions is intended as a working copy only.
Responses submitted using this document WILL NOT be accepted.
This document will be used to facilitate the LWVMP consensus meeting (see page 5) and to keep
an unofficial copy of our responses when submitting our League’s official response online.
For information contact Vicki Gilfix, Education Study Group Chair at 622-9510 or [email protected]
GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. The current role of the federal government
in public education is:
Much too small / too small / about right / too
large / much too large
2. What should be the role of the federal
government in public education?
(Rank)
a. To ensure that all students preK-12 receive a
quality education
b. To develop accountability measures that will
study the progress of all students so that they
achieve adequate yearly progress
c. To mandate Common Core Standards for all
students K-12
d. To monitor state efforts for funding
e. To measure teacher effectiveness through
test data
3. A quality public education is important to
perpetuate a strong and viable democracy.
September 2011
Strongly agree / Agree / No consensus /
Disagree / Strongly disagree
Please share any comments your League has
concerning the topics covered in the General
Consensus Questions (250 word maximum).
COMMON CORE STANDARDS
4. Currently the governors and state
education officers have developed Common
Core Standards that are national but not
federal. Should the standards be mandated of
the states in order to obtain federal funding?
(Choose one)
a. Special grant programs such as Race to the
Top
b. All programs under Elementary and
Secondary Education Act where the needs
qualify for funding
c. All programs receiving federal funding from
any source
d. All of the above
e. None of the above
Monterey Peninsula VOTER www.lwvmp.org
page 9
5. Should there be a national assessment
aligned with the common cores standards?
YES
/
NO
If Yes, should implementation be voluntary or
federally mandated?
(Choose one)
a. Voluntary
b. Mandated
c. Mandated, if fully funded
If No, what other accountability measures might
you suggest?
(Choose one)
a. Continue to allow the states to develop their
own assessments
b. Suggest that the local education districts use
their own assessments or adopt one that is a
nationally norm-referenced assessment such as
the Stanford Achievement Test or Iowa Test of
Basic Skills
c. Suggest that districts use a portfolio type
of assessment where student projects and
activities would be scored holistically
6. National standards should lead to:
(Choose one)
a. A nationally mandated curriculum to
be aligned to the national standards and
assessments
b. A national curriculum that is only suggested
but not mandated
c. A suggested structure for states and local
education agencies to develop their own
curriculum
d. No national curriculum
7. What role should the national assessment
consortia play in student evaluation?
(Rank order)
a. Provide an assessment system that is
aligned to the Common Core Standards
b. Provide comparison data showing progress
toward reaching Common Core Standards
c. Provide criteria for determining readiness for
college and careers
d. Provide information to students, parents,
teachers and school districts about student
page 10
achievement
e. Provide diagnostic information on each child
8. Data from the national assessments are
often difficult for parents, teachers and
others to understand. If we have a national
assessment, what information is most
important to be reported to parents, teachers,
students and the community?
(Choose one)
a. Data should be “norm referenced” (where
students are ranked) for district comparison
only
b. Data should be “criterion referenced” and
clearly informative so that teachers, parents,
and students know how individual students
have mastered criteria established at a national
level
c. Data should be used to determine “cut”
scores knowing if students have mastered
requirements for special grade levels
9. Information from nationally required
assessment data should be used to:
(Choose one)
a. Sanction schools not measuring up to the
specific levels
b. Reward schools that achieve high scores
c. Rank teachers based on student test score
data
d. Reward teachers who have exemplary
scores
e. Inform districts how their population
compares to others similar to theirs
Please share any comments your League has
concerning the topics covered in the Common
Core Standards Questions (250 word maximum).
FUNDING AND EQUITY
10. In the past most of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) funding has
been non-competitive based on need. All/Any
Schools that prove they fall under the federal
guidelines for funding receive those funds.
However, competitive grants are now being
proposed to states/districts who meet certain
League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula
September 2011
federal requirements, such as Race to the
Top. Which would be appropriate:
(Choose one)
a. Non-competitive funding for all applicants
meeting requirements
b. A combination of non-competitive and
competitive grants
c. Competitive grants only
d. No federal funding
13. Currently Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) funding is considered
“categorical” rather than for general use. This
means that it can only be used with special
populations for special purposes. ESEA
should remain targeted toward poverty and
special needs.
Strongly agree / Agree / No consensus /
Disagree / Strongly disagree
11. If the federal government’s role is the
concern of the “common good” then:
(Choose one)
a. Mandates only should be sanctioned
b. Mandates and funding should both be
provided
c. Funding should be provided through grants
only
d. A combination of funded mandates and
grants should apply
e. No mandates should be required and limited
grants for innovation available
14. The federal government has a role in
supporting early childhood education, birth to
5, for all children?
Strongly agree / Agree / No consensus /
Disagree / Strongly disagree
12. Equity in public education means
equitable access to:
(Rank order)
a. high quality teaching/learning
b. adequate and current learning materials
c. clean and well maintained physical facilities
d. food and health care
e. safe and secure neighborhoods
f. secure housing
Membership renewal letters
were mailed in early July.
Did you get one?
We encourage a prompt
response!
Also, please continue to bring a friend as a
guest to Lunch & Learn meetings: recruit new
members whenever you can. I will be happy
to send League material to anyone who is
interested in joining.
Thank You! Tamara Harris, LWVMP
Membership Director, [email protected]
September 2011
15. Federal support for early childhood
education programs (e.g. Head Start, Title I,
Special Education, Early Start) should include
funding for parent education and support
regarding child development, child health
and nutrition, and access to other supportive
services, such as mental health as needed.
a. Strongly agree / Agree / No consensus /
Disagree / Strongly disagree
b. This funding should be extended to:
All children / Only those with special needs
special needs first
Please share any comments your League has
concerning the topics covered in the Funding and
Equity Questions (250 word maximum)
Democracy is Not a Spectator Sport
“The League of Women Voters, a
nonpartisan political organization,
encourages informed and active
participation in government, works to
increase understanding of major public
policy issues, and influences public policy
through education and advocacy.”
Monterey Peninsula VOTER www.lwvmp.org
page 11
Monterey Peninsula VOTER
published nine times per year
League of Women Voters
of the Monterey Peninsula
PO Box 1995 Monterey CA 93942
Non-Profit Org.
U.S.POSTAGE PAID
Monterey, CA
Permit No. 115
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
Lunch & Learn with the League
Date:
Time:
Topic:
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
12 noon lunch / 12:30 panel
“Public Safety with the Monterey County Sheriff”
Speaker Scott Miller, Monterey County Sheriff will talk about serious public
safety issues including: new approaches to combat gang violence; what “prison
realignment” means to your neighborhood; jail overcrowding and what is being
done about it; and the implications of shrinking state and local budgets on safety.
There will be a question and answer session with the audience.
See page 1 for details about the speaker and on attending the lecture & luncheon
Featured speakers or panels begin at 12:30 and meetings end at 2pm (there is no cost and
reservations are not required to just attend the program portion of the meeting).
Lunch and Learn meetings are held at the Unitarian Universalist Church,
490 Aquajito Road, Carmel, CA (junction of Highways 68 and 1).